October 29, 2025 • 32 mins
The shutdown continues over ACA premiums. None of the Obamacare promises have come true. Elections one week away may give us the mood of the people in key races. The Fed has been operating blindly for well over a year. Bill Gates weighs in on the climate and AI.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-tom-sullivan-show--6632619/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-tom-sullivan-show--6632619/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
And hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast.
It is the twenty eighth day of October, year of
our twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan, and
I come to you with apologies. We are very very
late today. We had a software crash and I had
to wait. No, it just it erased everything. So here
(00:47):
we are. Let's get going with what we have in
the news for you today. First of all, we've got
Bill Gates making a big change about climate change. I
want to get to the shutdown, well, the day twenty
eight and what all of that entails, So I want
to start. We've got a bunch of commentary today too,
(01:10):
about Harry Enton has a very interesting pull out from
CNN about how the Republicans are doing better during the shutdown,
which even he is kind of amazed at. But let's
start with Let's start with the shutdown. I mean it's
continuing on. Dick Durbin is the big senior senator on
(01:34):
the Republican side, and I want you to listen to
what he had to say about the fact that this
is about that that healthcare premium, and I guess, I
mean he's very sincere, but what he wants to do
is help people with their healthcare premium for the Affordable
(02:00):
Care Act, which is not affordable, and it keeps going up,
and it never was affordable. They've had to subsidize the
premium since day one. And I go, well, okay, that's nice,
but what about their car payment, or what about their rent?
Or you want to help them with that too, And
in many ways, that's where we are going in government.
(02:24):
I'll tell you a lot of people probably think that
I'm cold hearted, you know what, but I look at
this simple. I am more than willing to help people
who are, through no fault of their own, either through
injury or illness, cannot be gainfully employed and be able
(02:45):
to put money on the table so they can go
pay their rent, pay their insurance, pay their bills. But
all of us have bills. So at what point do
you draw the line and say, well, I want to
help these people with their Let's see, look at all
the bills they've got, how about their health insurance? Listen
to what Dick Durbin has to say.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I can understand his sense of urgency. We feel the
same on the Democratic side. But I'll tell you we
also add in the people who are receiving letters from
their health insurance companies and realizing that Republicans actions that
eliminated the tax subsidies mean that premiums are going to
go up dramatically for millions and millions of American families. So,
of course, we want to do everything we can to
(03:25):
help the federal employees, but we also feel an obligation
to help these millions of families.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yeah, he feels as a United States Center obligation to
help people with their Affordable Care Act premiums.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
He goes on, We're prepared to meet with the President
when he returns from his overseas trip. We're prepared to
meet with the House of Representatives, which has been on
vacation for four weeks. We're prepared to sit down at
the table quickly and resolve this. But we want to
include relief for families facing health insurance costs they just
can't afford.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Hey, there it is again. He keeps coming back to it,
help families with their health insurance premiums that they just
can't afford. Well, there's a lot of things that people
can't afford, and if you can't afford it, theore theoretically,
you don't buy it. Health insurance is important. Food is important,
theof over your head is important. So I mean, at
what point are they going to say, well, we need
(04:20):
to help them with all the bills that they can't afford.
Maybe they bought stuff they shouldn't have bought. But in
the case of health insurance, I get it, it's important,
But is it the government's job to help those people.
There's a lot of fraud involved as well, So again
I go back to I want to help anybody and
everybody who needs a hand because of illness or injury
(04:43):
through no fault of their own, they cannot be gainfully
employed to be able to pay their bills. It's just
that simple. But he wants to pay the bills of
their health insurance, what about all their other bills? Senator,
let's do a little flashback. This is President Obama when
they signed the Affordable Care Act ten years ago.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Ten years from now, people will look back and say
that this was the right thing to do.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Well, I'm sure a lot of people think it was
the right thing to do, but it obviously hasn't worked
out like their plan. Here's Boba ten years ago giving
the speech about how Affordable Care Act was such a
wonderful thing.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
This legislation will also lower costs for families and for
businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by
over one trillion dollars in the next two decades.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
No, no, I police, don't laugh. That's going to reduce
the cost of health care for individuals and for businesses
and the government. It's going to reduce the deficit by
a trillion dollars over the next twenty years. Two decades
he said and done any of those, he's done. Just
the opposite of those. It's raised the cost for individuals
and for businesses, and the deficits are bigger than they've
(05:56):
ever been. So these are empty promises, folks, And they
just keep saying, let's just get let's just keep adding more,
Let's spend more, Let's spend one point five trillion dollars
on more subsidies for Obamacare. I'm forgive me, but I've
heard these promises enough to where none of them have
come true. So I'm I'm kind of tuning out some
(06:19):
of the latest promises about if we if we just
put one point five trillion dollars towards affordable care premiums,
it's a it's all alive. Rick Scott, the senator from Florida,
used to be in the health insurance business. That's another
whole story, but his he thumbs it up this way.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
Obama Prime promise you and lose your doctor. Oh you did.
You would't lose your plan?
Speaker 6 (06:43):
You did.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
You're supposed to save twenty five hundred dollars a family,
And that was a lie. We're supposed to save over
one hundred million dollars in a federal bast Look at
how much does it all costing us? Everything Bombacare was
sold on light.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Yeah, it really was a total lie. And yeah, do
you remember the promise about if you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor. That's not true. You were
going to say twenty five hundred dollars a year each family.
Are you kidding me? It's probably gone up twenty five
hundred dollars so, Rick Scott, Yeah, he is right. Here's
(07:18):
a guy from a think tank about the National Health
Insurance Program.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
These subsidies are structured to be inflationary. They go directly
to health insurance companies, and because of that, insurers are
able to raise premiums and prices and pass that cost
onto the federal tax pair.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Maybe it would be easier to explain if you did this.
The subsidies for kids going to college. They apply for
a loan, a subsidy, whatever you want to call it,
and so we write them a check and they hand
that to the university. And what does the university do.
They raise their tuition and praising it and raising it
(08:01):
to the point where college tuition is more expensive than
it's ever been and a lot of families cannot afford
to send their kids to college. It's the exact same
mathematical formula. You give the extra money to people, they
go give it to the insurance company. They don't keep it,
They pay the premium to the insurance company, and the
(08:22):
insurance company raises their premiums and the insurance companies are
getting wealthy, just like the universities off of this. So
at what point do you want to scream about this?
So this whole shutdown thing a lot of a lot well,
the history has always been Republicans get blamed for it,
and a lot of people have been saying that the
(08:42):
Republicans are at fault, and that's what they're going back
and forth. They're pointing the fingers saying they're they're the fault,
They're the fault, back and forth. Harry Enton, the statistician
over at CNN, had some surprising information.
Speaker 7 (08:56):
You might think, given that the Republicans are in charge
of both the House and the Senate, that a govern
been shutdown might actually hurt the Republican brand, but in
fact it hasn't. If anything, it's been helped a little bit.
Take a look here the shift in net popularity versus
pre shutdown. I'm on the g when we're looking at
the Republican Party overall, that brand actually up two points.
Speaker 6 (09:14):
That's within the margin ever, but clearly it hasn't dropped.
Come over this side of the screen.
Speaker 7 (09:18):
Look at the net approval ratings for Republicans in Congress.
It's actually up five points since pre shutdown. So what
we're seeing here is the Republican brand in Congress has
actually improved somewhat compared to where we were pre shutdown,
despite the fact the Republicans' control. And that's the mat
that John Thune and Mike Johnson are looking at is, Hey,
why should we give an electorally speaking when our brand
(09:38):
has actually improved.
Speaker 6 (09:40):
A little bit?
Speaker 7 (09:40):
Yeah, okay, with whom so I think it's two groups
that it's so important to keep an eye on it all, right,
changing the Republican Congress's net approval rating versus pre shutdown.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
It's rallying the base, for sure.
Speaker 7 (09:50):
Look at this, the net approval rating up twelve points
versus pre shutdown.
Speaker 6 (09:54):
But it's not just with the base. It's also with
the middle of the electorate.
Speaker 7 (09:57):
Look at this among independents it's up eight points as
well well. So we've got a situation here where Republicans
with this shutdown are actually rallying their base. But it's
also something that's not hurting them with the folks in
the middle of anything. It's helping them with folks in
the middle. And this is a type of math that
if you're Republicans you like to see, right, because something
could rally the base but alienate those in the middle,
or something could rally those in the middle but alienate
(10:18):
the base.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
But the truth is we're not seeing that.
Speaker 7 (10:20):
What we're seeing is the Republican brand has actually gotten
better among independents, and it's also gotten better among Republicans
as well, that Republican brand when it comes to those
in Congress. So again, what's the electoral reason that Republicans
were given it this So, I mean, look the general
congressional ballot, which traditionally Democrats have done really well on.
And if you look at this point back when Trump
was present the first time around, Democrats are up eleven points.
(10:42):
Look at where it is now, Democrats are head but
they're actually only up three points. This is, in fact,
the worst position Democrats have been on in a generic
ballot at this point in midterm when there was a
Republican president in the last twenty years. And this is
no different from pre shutdown. So Republicans aren't losing on
this metric either. They become more popular and actually in
a pretty good position for them historically when it comes
to the generic congressional ballot. Is a concerning number for
(11:04):
Democrats because it's considerably worse than they traditionally do in
midterm elections when there's a Republican president.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Wow, somewhat surprising. I mean, everybody says it's the Democrats
that are winning. The argument doesn't matter about who's winning politically.
There's going to be people that are going to lose
their food benefits come Saturday. The snap program, the food
stamp program is going to come to a screeching halt.
And same with the Affordable Care Act, those premium subsidies
(11:34):
are going to come to a screeching halt. So generally
the public is in favor of helping one another. And
I've seen polls as high as seventy some percent want
to continue to keep paying people their food benefits and subsidies.
But these polls, when it comes down to asking people
about how they really feel about it, I'm somewhat surprised.
(11:59):
One of the indicators of how people really feel will
be uh in uh to next Tuesday, the fourth of November.
I know, it's it's a week away, and you've got elections,
big ones in Virginia and in uh New Jersey, and
(12:20):
so you've got some races that will determine maybe how
people feel. Kate betting Field is a spokeswoman for the Democrats,
and this is the way she sums up how she
sees Oh and there's also in New York City man Donnie.
But that that how how she sees the race.
Speaker 8 (12:39):
Yeah, look, baseline, it's winning those races. I medium politics.
If you're winning, you're succeeding. So yes, of course I
think Democrats winning in Virginia in New Jersey, and then
you know, the outcome of the mayoral race will be
will be interesting. As we've there's been a lot of
discussion about whether the left wing of the party is
a sndan I you know, look, I would caution a
little bit in uh overreading too much the results of
(13:02):
the New York mayoral race.
Speaker 6 (13:03):
Obviously, it is a very very liberal city.
Speaker 8 (13:06):
I'm somebody who thinks that a lot of what Mamdani
is doing to energize a cohort of people who haven't
been that excited about the Democratic Party, young people in particular,
is generally a good thing for the Democratic Party. I
don't necessarily think that whoever is elected mayor of New
York is going to resonate one way or the other
in some of these purple districts across the country. So,
(13:28):
you know, I know everybody's eager to take the results
of that race and sort of read into what does
this mean about the future of the National Party. I
would not go that far, but you know, I think
victory in Virginia, victory in New Jersey critical for the Democrats,
and let's see what happens in New York.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Yeah, especially Virginia because Virginia is really controlled by Northern Virginia,
and Northern Virginia is the suburbs of Washington, DC. So
there's a lot of government employees there that have been
laid off and or their families. Everybody knows somebody has
been laid off if you live in Northern Virginia. And
so it'll be an interesting note. I mean, the Democrat
(14:05):
is leading in that race, but it will be interesting
to see just how much of a lead and if
it changes anything between now and next Tuesday. On the
Republican side, David Urban has this analysis.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
I'm hoping for Mondamie victory here in New York, right,
we hope so right, But you're.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Saying this with a smile.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
No, true you.
Speaker 6 (14:24):
I think you're being honest.
Speaker 9 (14:24):
You're a big truthful I mean, because the fallacy right
of the left, the far left agenda in terms of
free everything for everybody right is going to be shown
to be. You know, the emperor has no clothes. It's
it's different. Campaigning is different than governing. Right, It's Bernie
Sanders AOC. They can say these great things, they got
(14:45):
the great slogos and be very jingoistic, but when you
have to when you have the keys to Gracie Mansion
and you have to govern the city of New York,
which in and of itself as like a country or
it's its own country here.
Speaker 6 (14:56):
And Mandami is going to put all these things in
the place.
Speaker 9 (14:59):
How's it going to How's it's going to pay for it?
It's going to tax riche, tax corporations. People will leave right.
Free buses, free schools, free healthcare, free this free that
somebody's got to pay for it.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
It's not free.
Speaker 9 (15:10):
And so he will become, whether Kate likes it or not,
Mandami will become the poster person, poster boy for the
Democratic Party moving forward, because again in New York Times,
the media, everything's settled here in New York and it's
just how it goes. I mean, like it or not,
Democrats are gonna be saddle with him for the next
two three four years as their poster boy.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
I think David's right. I think because of the fact
that if Mom Donnie wins, which is still a question,
Cuomo's coming up closer. But if Mom Donnie wins, it's
New York and the New York media will will overplay
the whole everything he does. He'll be under a microscope.
So we'll see what happens next Tuesday on that. As
(15:52):
far as the economy goes, uh, the FED is meeting
today and tomorrow and they will come out two o'clock
on Wednesday and tell us if they're lowering interest rates,
and the bet is absolutely they're going to lower interest
rates by a quarter of one percent. But David Zerbos,
who is chief economist for Jeffries and Company, big Wall
(16:13):
Street firm, he was one of the top ten that
we're going to be on the list to be selected
to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. Scott
Bessen came out and brought it down to the top five.
He didn't make the top five, but he's talking about
the Fed and interest rates. Let's listen.
Speaker 10 (16:35):
Well, I think we've got a lot of excellent policies
outside of monitory.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
That's one that are giving us the tailwind. Let's do it.
Speaker 10 (16:40):
And the question is is there an inflation anchoring problem
with expectations?
Speaker 6 (16:45):
No, there's not.
Speaker 10 (16:46):
But more importantly, going back to kind of Steve's survey,
we revised away almost a million and a half jobs
over the last eighteen months. Between the twenty twenty four
revisions and the beginning twenty twenty five ers, the FED
was flying blind, really flying blind for many many meetings,
and now all of a sudden we come and we
(17:06):
realized we created.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
All that growth with a lot less jobs. We got
a lot more productivity.
Speaker 10 (17:12):
And I think it's important you know that we're sort
of having the discussions brought up, which is the data's
not coming out, We don't know, but the FED was
really making a lot of these decisions with really bad
data compared to what the reality was, which is we
were getting one hundred and fifty thousand job reports every
Friday in the first month, and it turned out they
(17:33):
were only about fifty thousand running for Yeah, but a
lot less bottom line, a lot less And so how
is that sort of an acceptable switch where you go, oh,
we're just going to wake up and everything's kind of
the same. I do think, you know, look, it's nice
to see the ADP data. It's got its own wortz
like everything else. But the point is we've got real
(17:57):
problems in certain sectors of this economy, the housing in particular,
but most of the interest rate sensitive sectors.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
And I think.
Speaker 10 (18:03):
That's really a testament to the fact that we have
restrictive monetary policy pushing against these other policies Joe, that
are really driving the stock market, really driving economic growth.
And the real risk is we end up in a
true technology driven economy, a late nineties style economy.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
But this time around, there's.
Speaker 10 (18:24):
A lot less jobs to be created, and I think
the FED has to really be thinking about that scenario.
You've got the headlines today at ups, You've had Amazon headlines,
just seems like headline after headline at the micro level,
we're able to.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Grow with a lot less job place aside, Yeah, he said.
This is the guy who came very close to being
the next FED chairman, says, and he's the head of
economic department for one of the big Wall Street firms.
He says, we've been lied to. The FED has been
operating blind thinking there were all these jobs that were created.
It wasn't anywhere near that. And so he's not too
(18:56):
worried about inflation. But he says, we're growing the economy
without as many people working, and with AI on the horizon,
where a lot of people predict eventually jobs fewer will
be needed. If you want to look long term, jobs
are going to be the big problem that the policymakers
(19:20):
are going to have to solve because there's going to
be more growth with companies using fewer people, no question
about it. Well, at least for now, there's a lot
of jobs in the immigration world. The ICE is hiring,
which worries me because they want to hire ten thousand
new ICE officers and a fifty thousand dollars bonus if
(19:42):
you sign up. The problem I worry about is a
long time ago. I did wear a badge and it
took months for I was in the academy. I think
it was four months of seven days a week to
live in academy. It takes a lot. And then I
was a rookie when I came out of the academy.
And I'm worried that there's going to be a lot
(20:04):
of ICE officers who are not properly trained, not properly
doing the job. But that's for Tom Holmand to worry about.
One of the one of the Border patrol chiefs, was
in court today asked being a judge wanted him to
show up because there's a video of him lobbing a
tear gas canister and the judge micro managing. How these
(20:29):
officers can do their job. The guy from the Border
Patrol said there was a crowd storming at them, throwing
things at them, and he lobbed.
Speaker 11 (20:39):
The the.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Mace at the at the crowd to protect the officers
that were coming at him. Well, the judge wants him
in court today. Tom Holman had some observations.
Speaker 11 (20:53):
Well, look, I'm a chief ol Green. It was a
friend of mine. I met him in Los Angeles during
when a guy control there when peaceful print troll tests
turned into criminal activity and ICE officers being assaulted and
our father buildings were being attacked. So if he's a professional,
he's a patriot, I believe he's don't do well in
court today. And I won't call them crowd control measures.
(21:14):
These are measures they have to take because they're being assaulted,
because people are impeding what I was just trying to do.
It isn't about a crowd, isn't about protests. Your protests
had to write the protest. We support that. But when
they cross that line and the throwing weapon, throwing the
objects of the ice, assaulting ICE officers or impeding their movements,
preventing them from leaving a building with a detainee, and
their possession that's what we've got to draw the line.
(21:36):
I've said from day one, when you cross that line,
you'll be held accountable, you'll be prosecuted. So I wouldn't
call them crowd control measures. I'll bring them criminal response
measures to keep our officers safe. And now only our officers,
say the detainees having their custody keeping them safe.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Well, a little bit of an accounting on how ICE
has been doing. One report out today said so far
one point sixty seven million have self deported. Five hundred
and twenty seven thousand were deported by ICE versus twenty
(22:11):
million that came in over the last four years, so
they still have just touched a small portion of the
people that came in. About half of the field directors
apparently are going to be reassigned. Don't know why, but
they are not hitting their lofty goals of one million
per year one of the and on the recruiting, about
(22:34):
one third of the recruits fail. They don't make it.
So Homan talks about all of that as well.
Speaker 9 (22:41):
Well.
Speaker 11 (22:42):
First of all, the numbers are accurate. I mean by
the end of this year, by the end of December,
we'll have over six hundred thousand moves. Look at the
numbers this morning were five hundred and fifty four thousand
deportation if you EXTRAPP played out for twelve months. This
is historic, the biggest deportation operation that we've ever seen,
and so the numbers himself most secure board and history
of the nation. As you said, record deportation operation. And
(23:05):
let's not forget we have found over twenty three thousand
children rescued, many from forced labor, trafficking and sex trafficking
that the last administration wasn't looking for. Yeah, so great
success business administration, exactly right. Look, personnel changes happens a lot.
These are changes being I'm not sure they've actually been
in place, and I'm not sure how many this is affecting.
(23:28):
But Secretary of Homeland Security Christy Nooman has total authority
over ICE and who serves in what positions. So you know,
I think the results speaks from themselves. I think that
we're not going to be slowed down by any you know,
any story about changes in leadership. I can tell you
that Trump administration is dedicated to achieving a record deportation
(23:48):
that vast majority being criminal. Amis make this country safer
every day. But as far as personnel changes. That's that's
under the purview of the Secretary of Homeland Security. I
met the White House and work with people like Steve
Stephen Miller to cumber strategic policies and plans pub to
maintain success and how they get the numbers even higher.
So absolutely does. And look, I've broughte a few of
(24:09):
the stories this morning on the way to work. I
want to make one thing perfectly there. First of all,
I set from day one we are going to prioritize
public safety threats and national security threats. And the data
proves about seventy percent fall in that category. The other
thirty percent of gang members national security threats who don't
have a criminal history PUS. Seventy percent of everybody we're
removing is a criminal bottom line, And I set from
(24:30):
day one, even though we prioritize public safety trusts and
national security threats, if you're in the country, I legally
you're not off the table. Especially for the one point
four men illegal aliens who have final orders of deportation.
They've had a due process, a great tax payer expense.
They need to do prioritize shoe because they're quick removals.
When we find them and arrest them. They've given their
(24:51):
they they all have a due process. We can mold
them in twenty four hours. So the prioritizition continues to
be public safety, trusts, national securitists. Those were who had
you process. But again, I'll say it again, if you're
in the United States illegally, you're not off the table.
You should leave on your own and give yourself an
opportunity to come on a legal program. But if we
have to seek you out and find you, if we
(25:13):
find you in a sanctuary city because we're forced into
the neighborhood to find a bad guy, and we find you,
you may not be a public staty to it. For
you're in the country illegally, you're going to be arrested
and you're gonna be according.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
So there's a lot of people screaming about ICE and
they don't like it, and they're showing the Antifa and
other people that are fighting back against them. But what
is the cause? I always look at how did this
whole thing start? And there's two things going on. One
is Joe Biden let the gates open. He said, come one,
come on, come on into our country. Twenty million people
came in they took advantage of it. The other problem
(25:46):
is the sanctuary city system, which I don't understand how
you can have laws that ignore the federal government. You're
part of the United States, but the sanctuary city laws.
If they did away with those, then you can pick
up all these people in the jails that are that
are arrested by local police, hand them over to Ice
(26:07):
deport them. I saw a story the other day about
we're spending tens of millions of dollars building detention centers,
and I thought, why why not? I thought you were
just picking them up, processing them and putting them on
the next plane to wherever they're going. But no, it
turns out world again that they have to go through
immigration court and that takes months, if not years, so
(26:29):
detention centers are needed more expense. A lot of this
is you can put the blame on Joe Biden and
on the mayors of the sanctuary cities. In my humble opinion,
climate change got a huge setback. Sugar Daddy Bill Gates,
(26:51):
who can do with his money whatever he wants to do.
When he retired from Microsoft after making his billions, he
went out to focus on health and curing diseases, doing
a lot of wonderful work around the world, spending billions
of dollars. Well, one of the things he did was
he got caught up in the climate change story and
(27:14):
has spent one point three billion of his own money.
And now all of a sudden he's had a vision
and he's going, actually, I need to spend the money
on what I originally started doing, which was working on
cures for diseases that are going on around the world.
Speaker 12 (27:33):
Here's Bill Gate. We need to define bubble. If what
we mean is like tulips in the Netherlands that they
eventually looked back and said, what the heck? There was
nothing there. Those were just tulips. No, that's not where
we are. If you mean it's like the Internet bubble,
where in the end, something very profound happened. The world
(27:55):
was very different. Some companies succeeded, but a lot of
the companies or kind of me too, fell behind. Burning
capital companies. Absolutely, there are a ton of these investments
that will be dead ends.
Speaker 13 (28:12):
And you look at all the investments that are being
made today by some of the big tech companies. Some
companies we're not making money on AI yet, but are
making massive commitments to chip makers and data centers and
say this math makes sense.
Speaker 12 (28:27):
The AI is the biggest technical things ever in my lifetime.
I mean, it is so profound and therefore its influence
is hard to overstate. And the economic value this is
basically intelligence. You know where you can get medical advice,
so you can get a tutor, or you can get
(28:47):
somebody to help you to sign drugs. So the value
is extremely high, just like creating the Internet ended up
being in net very very valuable. But you have a
frenzy and you know some of these companies will be
glad they spent all this money. Some of them, you know,
they'll commit to data centers whose electricities is too expensive.
(29:10):
You know that it could be done overseas, or they'll
buy a generation of chips, and you know they won't
have captured all their value before the next UH one
comes along. But you know, if you want to be
a tech company, you don't get to say no, uh.
You know, let's check out at both race. We need
(29:30):
to put things like terror power, nuclear actors in places
where it's very clear that you're not raising the residents'
electricity bills, because that's being put in there Historically, nuclear
was done in a way that the utility bore a
lot of that liability that that business model won't get repeated.
(29:54):
So we need to make sure to pick locations where
the economics and the play acceptance is very, very strong.
We have we don't have permission to drive up people's
electricities costs. You know, in terms of the jobs, this
is going to take some period of time, but yes,
(30:15):
although it hasn't been seen in large numbers, so over
the next several years there will be some impact on
the job market. Nowadays, when you say that, some people
are like, oh, how can you you know, you know,
say that, isn't that going to slow the US down
in this race? But it's only honest for people to
(30:35):
speak frankly about the fact this will have a big
effect on the job market.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
The bottom line, trillions of dollars have been spent out
of his pocket one point three billion on climate change,
and he's going we're at a dead end. In other words,
didn't work. There's been a lot of improvement in We've
got solar panels and we've got of cleaner air and
a lot of play, so it's not a complete waste.
(31:03):
But at the same time, it's not going to meet
any of the promises that he thought. And he's also
going on about the fact that all these predictions of
the demise of Earth are way, way, way over blown.
But on the other hand, he sees the future he
always has, and he sees AI as being critical and
(31:27):
being the biggest, as he called it, the biggest thing
that he's ever seen, and it will have an impact
on jobs. So Wall Street today it just keeps going higher.
Dow Jones Industrials up two hundred and sixty five now
at forty seven thousand and nine, seventy two s and
P up nineteen, Nasdaq up one hundred and thirty six,
(31:49):
the price of gold up sixty three dollars to forty
three point fifty five, and oil up slightly now it's
sixty dollars and some change for a barrel of oil.
That's it for today. Thank you for joining us. We'll
be back tomorrow and hope to see you again.
And hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast.
It is the twenty eighth day of October, year of
our twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan, and
I come to you with apologies. We are very very
late today. We had a software crash and I had
to wait. No, it just it erased everything. So here
(00:47):
we are. Let's get going with what we have in
the news for you today. First of all, we've got
Bill Gates making a big change about climate change. I
want to get to the shutdown, well, the day twenty
eight and what all of that entails, So I want
to start. We've got a bunch of commentary today too,
(01:10):
about Harry Enton has a very interesting pull out from
CNN about how the Republicans are doing better during the shutdown,
which even he is kind of amazed at. But let's
start with Let's start with the shutdown. I mean it's
continuing on. Dick Durbin is the big senior senator on
(01:34):
the Republican side, and I want you to listen to
what he had to say about the fact that this
is about that that healthcare premium, and I guess, I
mean he's very sincere, but what he wants to do
is help people with their healthcare premium for the Affordable
(02:00):
Care Act, which is not affordable, and it keeps going up,
and it never was affordable. They've had to subsidize the
premium since day one. And I go, well, okay, that's nice,
but what about their car payment, or what about their rent?
Or you want to help them with that too, And
in many ways, that's where we are going in government.
(02:24):
I'll tell you a lot of people probably think that
I'm cold hearted, you know what, but I look at
this simple. I am more than willing to help people
who are, through no fault of their own, either through
injury or illness, cannot be gainfully employed and be able
(02:45):
to put money on the table so they can go
pay their rent, pay their insurance, pay their bills. But
all of us have bills. So at what point do
you draw the line and say, well, I want to
help these people with their Let's see, look at all
the bills they've got, how about their health insurance? Listen
to what Dick Durbin has to say.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I can understand his sense of urgency. We feel the
same on the Democratic side. But I'll tell you we
also add in the people who are receiving letters from
their health insurance companies and realizing that Republicans actions that
eliminated the tax subsidies mean that premiums are going to
go up dramatically for millions and millions of American families. So,
of course, we want to do everything we can to
(03:25):
help the federal employees, but we also feel an obligation
to help these millions of families.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yeah, he feels as a United States Center obligation to
help people with their Affordable Care Act premiums.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
He goes on, We're prepared to meet with the President
when he returns from his overseas trip. We're prepared to
meet with the House of Representatives, which has been on
vacation for four weeks. We're prepared to sit down at
the table quickly and resolve this. But we want to
include relief for families facing health insurance costs they just
can't afford.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Hey, there it is again. He keeps coming back to it,
help families with their health insurance premiums that they just
can't afford. Well, there's a lot of things that people
can't afford, and if you can't afford it, theore theoretically,
you don't buy it. Health insurance is important. Food is important,
theof over your head is important. So I mean, at
what point are they going to say, well, we need
(04:20):
to help them with all the bills that they can't afford.
Maybe they bought stuff they shouldn't have bought. But in
the case of health insurance, I get it, it's important,
But is it the government's job to help those people.
There's a lot of fraud involved as well, So again
I go back to I want to help anybody and
everybody who needs a hand because of illness or injury
(04:43):
through no fault of their own, they cannot be gainfully
employed to be able to pay their bills. It's just
that simple. But he wants to pay the bills of
their health insurance, what about all their other bills? Senator,
let's do a little flashback. This is President Obama when
they signed the Affordable Care Act ten years ago.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Ten years from now, people will look back and say
that this was the right thing to do.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Well, I'm sure a lot of people think it was
the right thing to do, but it obviously hasn't worked
out like their plan. Here's Boba ten years ago giving
the speech about how Affordable Care Act was such a
wonderful thing.
Speaker 4 (05:24):
This legislation will also lower costs for families and for
businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by
over one trillion dollars in the next two decades.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
No, no, I police, don't laugh. That's going to reduce
the cost of health care for individuals and for businesses
and the government. It's going to reduce the deficit by
a trillion dollars over the next twenty years. Two decades
he said and done any of those, he's done. Just
the opposite of those. It's raised the cost for individuals
and for businesses, and the deficits are bigger than they've
(05:56):
ever been. So these are empty promises, folks, And they
just keep saying, let's just get let's just keep adding more,
Let's spend more, Let's spend one point five trillion dollars
on more subsidies for Obamacare. I'm forgive me, but I've
heard these promises enough to where none of them have
come true. So I'm I'm kind of tuning out some
(06:19):
of the latest promises about if we if we just
put one point five trillion dollars towards affordable care premiums,
it's a it's all alive. Rick Scott, the senator from Florida,
used to be in the health insurance business. That's another
whole story, but his he thumbs it up this way.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
Obama Prime promise you and lose your doctor. Oh you did.
You would't lose your plan?
Speaker 6 (06:43):
You did.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
You're supposed to save twenty five hundred dollars a family,
And that was a lie. We're supposed to save over
one hundred million dollars in a federal bast Look at
how much does it all costing us? Everything Bombacare was
sold on light.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Yeah, it really was a total lie. And yeah, do
you remember the promise about if you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor. That's not true. You were
going to say twenty five hundred dollars a year each family.
Are you kidding me? It's probably gone up twenty five
hundred dollars so, Rick Scott, Yeah, he is right. Here's
(07:18):
a guy from a think tank about the National Health
Insurance Program.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
These subsidies are structured to be inflationary. They go directly
to health insurance companies, and because of that, insurers are
able to raise premiums and prices and pass that cost
onto the federal tax pair.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Maybe it would be easier to explain if you did this.
The subsidies for kids going to college. They apply for
a loan, a subsidy, whatever you want to call it,
and so we write them a check and they hand
that to the university. And what does the university do.
They raise their tuition and praising it and raising it
(08:01):
to the point where college tuition is more expensive than
it's ever been and a lot of families cannot afford
to send their kids to college. It's the exact same
mathematical formula. You give the extra money to people, they
go give it to the insurance company. They don't keep it,
They pay the premium to the insurance company, and the
(08:22):
insurance company raises their premiums and the insurance companies are
getting wealthy, just like the universities off of this. So
at what point do you want to scream about this?
So this whole shutdown thing a lot of a lot well,
the history has always been Republicans get blamed for it,
and a lot of people have been saying that the
(08:42):
Republicans are at fault, and that's what they're going back
and forth. They're pointing the fingers saying they're they're the fault,
They're the fault, back and forth. Harry Enton, the statistician
over at CNN, had some surprising information.
Speaker 7 (08:56):
You might think, given that the Republicans are in charge
of both the House and the Senate, that a govern
been shutdown might actually hurt the Republican brand, but in
fact it hasn't. If anything, it's been helped a little bit.
Take a look here the shift in net popularity versus
pre shutdown. I'm on the g when we're looking at
the Republican Party overall, that brand actually up two points.
Speaker 6 (09:14):
That's within the margin ever, but clearly it hasn't dropped.
Come over this side of the screen.
Speaker 7 (09:18):
Look at the net approval ratings for Republicans in Congress.
It's actually up five points since pre shutdown. So what
we're seeing here is the Republican brand in Congress has
actually improved somewhat compared to where we were pre shutdown,
despite the fact the Republicans' control. And that's the mat
that John Thune and Mike Johnson are looking at is, Hey,
why should we give an electorally speaking when our brand
(09:38):
has actually improved.
Speaker 6 (09:40):
A little bit?
Speaker 7 (09:40):
Yeah, okay, with whom so I think it's two groups
that it's so important to keep an eye on it all, right,
changing the Republican Congress's net approval rating versus pre shutdown.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
It's rallying the base, for sure.
Speaker 7 (09:50):
Look at this, the net approval rating up twelve points
versus pre shutdown.
Speaker 6 (09:54):
But it's not just with the base. It's also with
the middle of the electorate.
Speaker 7 (09:57):
Look at this among independents it's up eight points as
well well. So we've got a situation here where Republicans
with this shutdown are actually rallying their base. But it's
also something that's not hurting them with the folks in
the middle of anything. It's helping them with folks in
the middle. And this is a type of math that
if you're Republicans you like to see, right, because something
could rally the base but alienate those in the middle,
or something could rally those in the middle but alienate
(10:18):
the base.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
But the truth is we're not seeing that.
Speaker 7 (10:20):
What we're seeing is the Republican brand has actually gotten
better among independents, and it's also gotten better among Republicans
as well, that Republican brand when it comes to those
in Congress. So again, what's the electoral reason that Republicans
were given it this So, I mean, look the general
congressional ballot, which traditionally Democrats have done really well on.
And if you look at this point back when Trump
was present the first time around, Democrats are up eleven points.
(10:42):
Look at where it is now, Democrats are head but
they're actually only up three points. This is, in fact,
the worst position Democrats have been on in a generic
ballot at this point in midterm when there was a
Republican president in the last twenty years. And this is
no different from pre shutdown. So Republicans aren't losing on
this metric either. They become more popular and actually in
a pretty good position for them historically when it comes
to the generic congressional ballot. Is a concerning number for
(11:04):
Democrats because it's considerably worse than they traditionally do in
midterm elections when there's a Republican president.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Wow, somewhat surprising. I mean, everybody says it's the Democrats
that are winning. The argument doesn't matter about who's winning politically.
There's going to be people that are going to lose
their food benefits come Saturday. The snap program, the food
stamp program is going to come to a screeching halt.
And same with the Affordable Care Act, those premium subsidies
(11:34):
are going to come to a screeching halt. So generally
the public is in favor of helping one another. And
I've seen polls as high as seventy some percent want
to continue to keep paying people their food benefits and subsidies.
But these polls, when it comes down to asking people
about how they really feel about it, I'm somewhat surprised.
(11:59):
One of the indicators of how people really feel will
be uh in uh to next Tuesday, the fourth of November.
I know, it's it's a week away, and you've got elections,
big ones in Virginia and in uh New Jersey, and
(12:20):
so you've got some races that will determine maybe how
people feel. Kate betting Field is a spokeswoman for the Democrats,
and this is the way she sums up how she
sees Oh and there's also in New York City man Donnie.
But that that how how she sees the race.
Speaker 8 (12:39):
Yeah, look, baseline, it's winning those races. I medium politics.
If you're winning, you're succeeding. So yes, of course I
think Democrats winning in Virginia in New Jersey, and then
you know, the outcome of the mayoral race will be
will be interesting. As we've there's been a lot of
discussion about whether the left wing of the party is
a sndan I you know, look, I would caution a
little bit in uh overreading too much the results of
(13:02):
the New York mayoral race.
Speaker 6 (13:03):
Obviously, it is a very very liberal city.
Speaker 8 (13:06):
I'm somebody who thinks that a lot of what Mamdani
is doing to energize a cohort of people who haven't
been that excited about the Democratic Party, young people in particular,
is generally a good thing for the Democratic Party. I
don't necessarily think that whoever is elected mayor of New
York is going to resonate one way or the other
in some of these purple districts across the country. So,
(13:28):
you know, I know everybody's eager to take the results
of that race and sort of read into what does
this mean about the future of the National Party. I
would not go that far, but you know, I think
victory in Virginia, victory in New Jersey critical for the Democrats,
and let's see what happens in New York.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Yeah, especially Virginia because Virginia is really controlled by Northern Virginia,
and Northern Virginia is the suburbs of Washington, DC. So
there's a lot of government employees there that have been
laid off and or their families. Everybody knows somebody has
been laid off if you live in Northern Virginia. And
so it'll be an interesting note. I mean, the Democrat
(14:05):
is leading in that race, but it will be interesting
to see just how much of a lead and if
it changes anything between now and next Tuesday. On the
Republican side, David Urban has this analysis.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
I'm hoping for Mondamie victory here in New York, right,
we hope so right, But you're.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Saying this with a smile.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
No, true you.
Speaker 6 (14:24):
I think you're being honest.
Speaker 9 (14:24):
You're a big truthful I mean, because the fallacy right
of the left, the far left agenda in terms of
free everything for everybody right is going to be shown
to be. You know, the emperor has no clothes. It's
it's different. Campaigning is different than governing. Right, It's Bernie
Sanders AOC. They can say these great things, they got
(14:45):
the great slogos and be very jingoistic, but when you
have to when you have the keys to Gracie Mansion
and you have to govern the city of New York,
which in and of itself as like a country or
it's its own country here.
Speaker 6 (14:56):
And Mandami is going to put all these things in
the place.
Speaker 9 (14:59):
How's it going to How's it's going to pay for it?
It's going to tax riche, tax corporations. People will leave right.
Free buses, free schools, free healthcare, free this free that
somebody's got to pay for it.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
It's not free.
Speaker 9 (15:10):
And so he will become, whether Kate likes it or not,
Mandami will become the poster person, poster boy for the
Democratic Party moving forward, because again in New York Times,
the media, everything's settled here in New York and it's
just how it goes. I mean, like it or not,
Democrats are gonna be saddle with him for the next
two three four years as their poster boy.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
I think David's right. I think because of the fact
that if Mom Donnie wins, which is still a question,
Cuomo's coming up closer. But if Mom Donnie wins, it's
New York and the New York media will will overplay
the whole everything he does. He'll be under a microscope.
So we'll see what happens next Tuesday on that. As
(15:52):
far as the economy goes, uh, the FED is meeting
today and tomorrow and they will come out two o'clock
on Wednesday and tell us if they're lowering interest rates,
and the bet is absolutely they're going to lower interest
rates by a quarter of one percent. But David Zerbos,
who is chief economist for Jeffries and Company, big Wall
(16:13):
Street firm, he was one of the top ten that
we're going to be on the list to be selected
to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. Scott
Bessen came out and brought it down to the top five.
He didn't make the top five, but he's talking about
the Fed and interest rates. Let's listen.
Speaker 10 (16:35):
Well, I think we've got a lot of excellent policies
outside of monitory.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
That's one that are giving us the tailwind. Let's do it.
Speaker 10 (16:40):
And the question is is there an inflation anchoring problem
with expectations?
Speaker 6 (16:45):
No, there's not.
Speaker 10 (16:46):
But more importantly, going back to kind of Steve's survey,
we revised away almost a million and a half jobs
over the last eighteen months. Between the twenty twenty four
revisions and the beginning twenty twenty five ers, the FED
was flying blind, really flying blind for many many meetings,
and now all of a sudden we come and we
(17:06):
realized we created.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
All that growth with a lot less jobs. We got
a lot more productivity.
Speaker 10 (17:12):
And I think it's important you know that we're sort
of having the discussions brought up, which is the data's
not coming out, We don't know, but the FED was
really making a lot of these decisions with really bad
data compared to what the reality was, which is we
were getting one hundred and fifty thousand job reports every
Friday in the first month, and it turned out they
(17:33):
were only about fifty thousand running for Yeah, but a
lot less bottom line, a lot less And so how
is that sort of an acceptable switch where you go, oh,
we're just going to wake up and everything's kind of
the same. I do think, you know, look, it's nice
to see the ADP data. It's got its own wortz
like everything else. But the point is we've got real
(17:57):
problems in certain sectors of this economy, the housing in particular,
but most of the interest rate sensitive sectors.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
And I think.
Speaker 10 (18:03):
That's really a testament to the fact that we have
restrictive monetary policy pushing against these other policies Joe, that
are really driving the stock market, really driving economic growth.
And the real risk is we end up in a
true technology driven economy, a late nineties style economy.
Speaker 6 (18:22):
But this time around, there's.
Speaker 10 (18:24):
A lot less jobs to be created, and I think
the FED has to really be thinking about that scenario.
You've got the headlines today at ups, You've had Amazon headlines,
just seems like headline after headline at the micro level,
we're able to.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Grow with a lot less job place aside, Yeah, he said.
This is the guy who came very close to being
the next FED chairman, says, and he's the head of
economic department for one of the big Wall Street firms.
He says, we've been lied to. The FED has been
operating blind thinking there were all these jobs that were created.
It wasn't anywhere near that. And so he's not too
(18:56):
worried about inflation. But he says, we're growing the economy
without as many people working, and with AI on the horizon,
where a lot of people predict eventually jobs fewer will
be needed. If you want to look long term, jobs
are going to be the big problem that the policymakers
(19:20):
are going to have to solve because there's going to
be more growth with companies using fewer people, no question
about it. Well, at least for now, there's a lot
of jobs in the immigration world. The ICE is hiring,
which worries me because they want to hire ten thousand
new ICE officers and a fifty thousand dollars bonus if
(19:42):
you sign up. The problem I worry about is a
long time ago. I did wear a badge and it
took months for I was in the academy. I think
it was four months of seven days a week to
live in academy. It takes a lot. And then I
was a rookie when I came out of the academy.
And I'm worried that there's going to be a lot
(20:04):
of ICE officers who are not properly trained, not properly
doing the job. But that's for Tom Holmand to worry about.
One of the one of the Border patrol chiefs, was
in court today asked being a judge wanted him to
show up because there's a video of him lobbing a
tear gas canister and the judge micro managing. How these
(20:29):
officers can do their job. The guy from the Border
Patrol said there was a crowd storming at them, throwing
things at them, and he lobbed.
Speaker 11 (20:39):
The the.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Mace at the at the crowd to protect the officers
that were coming at him. Well, the judge wants him
in court today. Tom Holman had some observations.
Speaker 11 (20:53):
Well, look, I'm a chief ol Green. It was a
friend of mine. I met him in Los Angeles during
when a guy control there when peaceful print troll tests
turned into criminal activity and ICE officers being assaulted and
our father buildings were being attacked. So if he's a professional,
he's a patriot, I believe he's don't do well in
court today. And I won't call them crowd control measures.
(21:14):
These are measures they have to take because they're being assaulted,
because people are impeding what I was just trying to do.
It isn't about a crowd, isn't about protests. Your protests
had to write the protest. We support that. But when
they cross that line and the throwing weapon, throwing the
objects of the ice, assaulting ICE officers or impeding their movements,
preventing them from leaving a building with a detainee, and
their possession that's what we've got to draw the line.
(21:36):
I've said from day one, when you cross that line,
you'll be held accountable, you'll be prosecuted. So I wouldn't
call them crowd control measures. I'll bring them criminal response
measures to keep our officers safe. And now only our officers,
say the detainees having their custody keeping them safe.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Well, a little bit of an accounting on how ICE
has been doing. One report out today said so far
one point sixty seven million have self deported. Five hundred
and twenty seven thousand were deported by ICE versus twenty
(22:11):
million that came in over the last four years, so
they still have just touched a small portion of the
people that came in. About half of the field directors
apparently are going to be reassigned. Don't know why, but
they are not hitting their lofty goals of one million
per year one of the and on the recruiting, about
(22:34):
one third of the recruits fail. They don't make it.
So Homan talks about all of that as well.
Speaker 9 (22:41):
Well.
Speaker 11 (22:42):
First of all, the numbers are accurate. I mean by
the end of this year, by the end of December,
we'll have over six hundred thousand moves. Look at the
numbers this morning were five hundred and fifty four thousand
deportation if you EXTRAPP played out for twelve months. This
is historic, the biggest deportation operation that we've ever seen,
and so the numbers himself most secure board and history
of the nation. As you said, record deportation operation. And
(23:05):
let's not forget we have found over twenty three thousand
children rescued, many from forced labor, trafficking and sex trafficking
that the last administration wasn't looking for. Yeah, so great
success business administration, exactly right. Look, personnel changes happens a lot.
These are changes being I'm not sure they've actually been
in place, and I'm not sure how many this is affecting.
(23:28):
But Secretary of Homeland Security Christy Nooman has total authority
over ICE and who serves in what positions. So you know,
I think the results speaks from themselves. I think that
we're not going to be slowed down by any you know,
any story about changes in leadership. I can tell you
that Trump administration is dedicated to achieving a record deportation
(23:48):
that vast majority being criminal. Amis make this country safer
every day. But as far as personnel changes. That's that's
under the purview of the Secretary of Homeland Security. I
met the White House and work with people like Steve
Stephen Miller to cumber strategic policies and plans pub to
maintain success and how they get the numbers even higher.
So absolutely does. And look, I've broughte a few of
(24:09):
the stories this morning on the way to work. I
want to make one thing perfectly there. First of all,
I set from day one we are going to prioritize
public safety threats and national security threats. And the data
proves about seventy percent fall in that category. The other
thirty percent of gang members national security threats who don't
have a criminal history PUS. Seventy percent of everybody we're
removing is a criminal bottom line, And I set from
(24:30):
day one, even though we prioritize public safety trusts and
national security threats, if you're in the country, I legally
you're not off the table. Especially for the one point
four men illegal aliens who have final orders of deportation.
They've had a due process, a great tax payer expense.
They need to do prioritize shoe because they're quick removals.
When we find them and arrest them. They've given their
(24:51):
they they all have a due process. We can mold
them in twenty four hours. So the prioritizition continues to
be public safety, trusts, national securitists. Those were who had
you process. But again, I'll say it again, if you're
in the United States illegally, you're not off the table.
You should leave on your own and give yourself an
opportunity to come on a legal program. But if we
have to seek you out and find you, if we
(25:13):
find you in a sanctuary city because we're forced into
the neighborhood to find a bad guy, and we find you,
you may not be a public staty to it. For
you're in the country illegally, you're going to be arrested
and you're gonna be according.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
So there's a lot of people screaming about ICE and
they don't like it, and they're showing the Antifa and
other people that are fighting back against them. But what
is the cause? I always look at how did this
whole thing start? And there's two things going on. One
is Joe Biden let the gates open. He said, come one,
come on, come on into our country. Twenty million people
came in they took advantage of it. The other problem
(25:46):
is the sanctuary city system, which I don't understand how
you can have laws that ignore the federal government. You're
part of the United States, but the sanctuary city laws.
If they did away with those, then you can pick
up all these people in the jails that are that
are arrested by local police, hand them over to Ice
(26:07):
deport them. I saw a story the other day about
we're spending tens of millions of dollars building detention centers,
and I thought, why why not? I thought you were
just picking them up, processing them and putting them on
the next plane to wherever they're going. But no, it
turns out world again that they have to go through
immigration court and that takes months, if not years, so
(26:29):
detention centers are needed more expense. A lot of this
is you can put the blame on Joe Biden and
on the mayors of the sanctuary cities. In my humble opinion,
climate change got a huge setback. Sugar Daddy Bill Gates,
(26:51):
who can do with his money whatever he wants to do.
When he retired from Microsoft after making his billions, he
went out to focus on health and curing diseases, doing
a lot of wonderful work around the world, spending billions
of dollars. Well, one of the things he did was
he got caught up in the climate change story and
(27:14):
has spent one point three billion of his own money.
And now all of a sudden he's had a vision
and he's going, actually, I need to spend the money
on what I originally started doing, which was working on
cures for diseases that are going on around the world.
Speaker 12 (27:33):
Here's Bill Gate. We need to define bubble. If what
we mean is like tulips in the Netherlands that they
eventually looked back and said, what the heck? There was
nothing there. Those were just tulips. No, that's not where
we are. If you mean it's like the Internet bubble,
where in the end, something very profound happened. The world
(27:55):
was very different. Some companies succeeded, but a lot of
the companies or kind of me too, fell behind. Burning
capital companies. Absolutely, there are a ton of these investments
that will be dead ends.
Speaker 13 (28:12):
And you look at all the investments that are being
made today by some of the big tech companies. Some
companies we're not making money on AI yet, but are
making massive commitments to chip makers and data centers and
say this math makes sense.
Speaker 12 (28:27):
The AI is the biggest technical things ever in my lifetime.
I mean, it is so profound and therefore its influence
is hard to overstate. And the economic value this is
basically intelligence. You know where you can get medical advice,
so you can get a tutor, or you can get
(28:47):
somebody to help you to sign drugs. So the value
is extremely high, just like creating the Internet ended up
being in net very very valuable. But you have a
frenzy and you know some of these companies will be
glad they spent all this money. Some of them, you know,
they'll commit to data centers whose electricities is too expensive.
(29:10):
You know that it could be done overseas, or they'll
buy a generation of chips, and you know they won't
have captured all their value before the next UH one
comes along. But you know, if you want to be
a tech company, you don't get to say no, uh.
You know, let's check out at both race. We need
(29:30):
to put things like terror power, nuclear actors in places
where it's very clear that you're not raising the residents'
electricity bills, because that's being put in there Historically, nuclear
was done in a way that the utility bore a
lot of that liability that that business model won't get repeated.
(29:54):
So we need to make sure to pick locations where
the economics and the play acceptance is very, very strong.
We have we don't have permission to drive up people's
electricities costs. You know, in terms of the jobs, this
is going to take some period of time, but yes,
(30:15):
although it hasn't been seen in large numbers, so over
the next several years there will be some impact on
the job market. Nowadays, when you say that, some people
are like, oh, how can you you know, you know,
say that, isn't that going to slow the US down
in this race? But it's only honest for people to
(30:35):
speak frankly about the fact this will have a big
effect on the job market.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
The bottom line, trillions of dollars have been spent out
of his pocket one point three billion on climate change,
and he's going we're at a dead end. In other words,
didn't work. There's been a lot of improvement in We've
got solar panels and we've got of cleaner air and
a lot of play, so it's not a complete waste.
(31:03):
But at the same time, it's not going to meet
any of the promises that he thought. And he's also
going on about the fact that all these predictions of
the demise of Earth are way, way, way over blown.
But on the other hand, he sees the future he
always has, and he sees AI as being critical and
(31:27):
being the biggest, as he called it, the biggest thing
that he's ever seen, and it will have an impact
on jobs. So Wall Street today it just keeps going higher.
Dow Jones Industrials up two hundred and sixty five now
at forty seven thousand and nine, seventy two s and
P up nineteen, Nasdaq up one hundred and thirty six,
(31:49):
the price of gold up sixty three dollars to forty
three point fifty five, and oil up slightly now it's
sixty dollars and some change for a barrel of oil.
That's it for today. Thank you for joining us. We'll
be back tomorrow and hope to see you again.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.